UK Election Night

[798686]

And to answer your question about clause 28 Joll, I was told on several occassions by my teachers in secondary school in England that they simply didn't want to act on the Homophobic bullying I went through because they were basically afraid of loosing their jobs because even discussing homosexuality with pupils (outside of a very very brief mention in sex-ed) was thought to violate clause 28.

That's pretty disgusting (on behalf of your teachers). I've seen that sort of thing happen, and it's very cruel - and basically should be stopped because it's abuse - regardless of any clause.

Not sure about what politicians stances were on clause 28 - but was this the kind of reason they scrapped it?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

That's pretty disgusting (on behalf of your teachers). I've seen that sort of thing happen, and it's very cruel - and basically should be stopped because it's abuse - regardless of any clause.

Not sure about what politicians stances were on clause 28 - but was this the kind of reason they scrapped it?

The Tories under Margaret Thatcher brought it in during the 1980's because they objected to gay youth groups leaving information at schools for gay pupils. It was campaigned against vigorously by activist groups and the Labour party, and one of the Labour party's manifesto commitments in 1997 was its abolition. I know of dozens of young people my age who went to school during that time period who suffered because of clause 28 and I presume that that pattern was repeated across Britain, so yes I suspect the kind of experiences I had were a direct cause for its abolition.

 

[Jason]

Clause 28 was actually a very brief statement within a 1988 act - the key phrase is that local authorities "shall not intentionally promote homosexuality".

Personally I think it was wrong and I'm pleased it was repealed. I'm certainly horrified that Hilaire (or anyone) was hurt because of it. But there is no way you can get from the wording of the act to the idea that gay pupils at school can be bullied. Whether the clause was ever intended to apply to schools is a moot point. I know some schools thought it did, but the act says local authorities (not organisations funded by local authorities) and certainly no schools (or anyone else) were ever prosecuted. The act categorically did not stop gay youth groups leaving information at schools for gay pupils - if anyone interpreted it this way they were out of order. My thought is that homophobic teachers in schools got on the bandwaggon and decided that they would say the act "justified" their wrong action or non-action. If there hadn't been a Clause 28 these homophobes would have found something else to "justify" their actions.

The 1980s were a very different world. Around the mid 1980s most (all?) student unions at UK universities put to a vote of students whether student union funds to societies and use of student union facilities could be extended to Gay and Lesbian support groups. At this time student union funds went to just about any student society: sport, hobby, academic support, charity, political. At many universities students voted that funds should not go to Gay and Lesbian support societies. The homophobia was everywhere - certainly in the student community. Clause 28 certainly didn't help (and politicians should of course provide leadership) but the "non-promotion" of gay lifestyle was actually in keeping with what students were voting for.

I'm definitely not defending Clause 28. But if it hadn't existed homophobes would have found something else to "justify" attacks on Hilaire and others.

 

[dandelion]

Hmm, didn't know that - nor did I know of your experiences Hil.

Was that mindset as a result of Tory policies though - or just a product of the time, in that before recently, Britain had been kinda uptight about things anyway...including previous Labour n Liberal governments?

Youre not that young are you? People argued about clause 28s meaning, but the safe and apparently recommended interpretation seemed to be that any official (ie from a teacher) suggestion that a gay lifestyle was acceptable might be illegal and cost you your job. It was brought in because of exagerated suggestions that a gay lifestyle was being promoted, so I suppose it must have ben at about the time people started to say it was acceptable, and intended to stop them doing so.

I'm not an expert on how homosexuality has been dealt with in politics - so I'm not sure what effect having them in the cabinet would have at present?

Gays? been there for some time. Just didnt mention it...

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I'm definitely not defending Clause 28. But if it hadn't existed homophobes would have found something else to "justify" attacks on Hilaire and others.

If it hadn't existed thousands of young people would have been able to get proper support from their schools and teachers for the issues they were facing without their teachers being afraid of loosing their jobs. Some local councils enforced clause 28 and required the sackings of teachers who did try and discuss homosexuality with their pupils, so it was a legitimate concern.

The fact that there are members of the cabinet who supported clause 28 and/or opposed its abolition is disgusting. Young gay people took their own lives because of the bullying, marginalisation and alienation they suffered during that period, how many might be alive and happy today had a sympathetic teacher been able to reach out to them and help them out?

 

[798686]

Youre not that young are you? People argued about clause 28s meaning, but the safe and apparently recommended interpretation seemed to be that any official (ie from a teacher) suggestion that a gay lifestyle was acceptable might be illegal and cost you your job.

Nope, I'm not - it's just that I didn't pay much attention to it at the time. Sorry. :redface:

Gays? been there for some time. Just didnt mention it...

LOL! Read the two posts prior to mine (#197,198). I was talking about what effect it would have if MAY and FOX were in the cabinet, grrrr. I wasn't referring to gays. Would having them in the cabinet - with their abovementioned views on section 28 and homosexuality - have any negative effect, since that clause's abolition has already happened, and attitudes have changed somewhat?

These guys are agenda setters now, we may think that the successes made by the Gay Rights movement are solid, but how can they be with so many who opposed them in the first place now in power? And that doesn't even address how anyone who is gay can feel comfortable with them governing in their name.

^^Hilaire seemed to know what I was referring to - but maybe that's because the conversation was ongoing at the time, and easier to follow. My comment could be misread now, I admit.

 

[Jason]

The fact that there are members of the cabinet who supported clause 28 and/or opposed its abolition is disgusting.

There is no member of this cabinet or of the outgoing Labour cabinet who hasn't said something shocking or voted in pretty shocking ways. Our politicians are flawed human beings, and every one of them has the flaws of the human condition.

I don't agree that you can take any issue from a couple of decades ago and form a view of the person based on that alone. Maybe the person has changed, certainly society has changed. Clause 28 was wrong. It was made in a more homophobic age and became a vehicle for homophobes and it undoubtedly did much damage. It came out of a situation where lunatic councils were following policies whereby they actively promoted homosexuality without a comparable promotion of hetrosexuality, and demonstrated their promotion of homosexuality by (for example) discriminating against hetrosexuals in the appointments they made. This was discrimination and it was wrong, and it needed a solution. Clause 28 wasn't the right solution, but I've long stopped expecting perfection from politics (or people). The reality is that it is part of a long and boring act and most of the MPs who voted on it probably hadn't even read it.

I understand Hilaire that you are Irish and if Clause 28 affected you then presumably you are from Northern Ireland (unless of course you have moved). Even today NI is (by an large) a pretty homophobic place. It certainly was in the 1980s. If Clause 28 had not existed the bullying and homophobia of NI (and elsewhere) would still have existed, promoted by religious bigots on both sides. Even today I don't think many would want to walk into a pub on either the Falls or the Shankill and "come out" as gay, wile in rural areas the churches whether RC or presbyterian hardly give a proper lead on tolerance.

 

[dandelion]

I don't agree that you can take any issue from a couple of decades ago and form a view of the person based on that alone. Maybe the person has changed, certainly society has changed. Clause 28 was wrong. It was made in a more homophobic age and became a vehicle for homophobes and it undoubtedly did much damage. It came out of a situation where lunatic councils were following policies whereby they actively promoted homosexuality without a comparable promotion of hetrosexuality, and demonstrated their promotion of homosexuality by (for example) discriminating against hetrosexuals in the appointments they made.

We only recently had a case in the news where a marriage councillor was sacked, and this was judged correct, because he refused to work with gay couples. Sometimes it is correct to consider sexual orientation and attitudes to same when employing someone. As a similar example, right now all the political parties are trying to recruit female MPs by positive discrimination.

I find it hard to see from our perspective now what was wrong with local authorities 'promoting' homosexuality. It is perfectly obvious to everyone who considers it that homosexuality is not 'learnt'. It is ridiculous to suggest that it is possible to promote homosexuality in the sense of converting people to it, only possible to promote it in the sense of getting people to think about the concept and whether it is wrong to persecute gay peoples. Thus, how can you describe those councils as 'lunatic', and how can you argue there needed to be a comparable ' promotion' of heterosexuality. I dont recall anyone being persecuted for being straight.

This was discrimination and it was wrong, and it needed a solution. Clause 28 wasn't the right solution

???Er, beating up gays was not discrimination? Telling people this was wrong was? Come on, by the standards of the time we can understand how this all happened, but by the standards of now, the councils were entirely correct to promote a better attitude to homosexuality.

I dont watch soaps, but judging by eatenders and emmerdale right now, this issue has hardly gone eway. The BBC/ITV seem to be doing some 'promoting' of gays right now which kinda suggests this is still a big issue.

I understand Hilaire that you are Irish and if Clause 28 affected you then presumably you are from Northern Ireland (unless of course you have moved). Even today NI is (by an large) a pretty homophobic place. It certainly was in the 1980s. If Clause 28 had not existed the bullying and homophobia of NI (and elsewhere) would still have existed, promoted by religious bigots on both sides.

You may be right, because I dont think it was Irish councils the conservatives were worrying about. But that hardly excuses an attempt to prevent whatever anti-discrimination activity was going on.

Even today I don't think many would want to walk into a pub on either the Falls or the Shankill and "come out" as gay, wile in rural areas the churches whether RC or presbyterian hardly give a proper lead on tolerance.

Yes, well, that would be the church which has a tradition of altar boys...This is precisely the traditional conservative approach to homosexuality. Ban it and carry on doing it.

 

[Jason]

Back in the 1980s there was a widely held view (probably then a majority view) that homosexuality was a learnt behaviour. This is part of what is behind the term "promote" in clause 28. Part is also the disrimination against hetrosexuals then practiced by some local authorities. Remember this is an age before the idea of positive discrimination had been thought up. And remember too that positive discrimination is now considered just another form of discrimination, and viewed as wrong. Of course Clause 28 was wrong. With hindsight the phrasing should have been that local authorities should not discriminate on all sorts of grounds, including sexual orientation. It was badly drafted. It should never have been passed and should have been repealed more quickly.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

There is no member of this cabinet or of the outgoing Labour cabinet who hasn't said something shocking or voted in pretty shocking ways. Our politicians are flawed human beings, and every one of them has the flaws of the human condition.

I don't agree that you can take any issue from a couple of decades ago and form a view of the person based on that alone. Maybe the person has changed, certainly society has changed. Clause 28 was wrong. It was made in a more homophobic age and became a vehicle for homophobes and it undoubtedly did much damage. It came out of a situation where lunatic councils were following policies whereby they actively promoted homosexuality without a comparable promotion of hetrosexuality, and demonstrated their promotion of homosexuality by (for example) discriminating against hetrosexuals in the appointments they made. This was discrimination and it was wrong, and it needed a solution. Clause 28 wasn't the right solution, but I've long stopped expecting perfection from politics (or people). The reality is that it is part of a long and boring act and most of the MPs who voted on it probably hadn't even read it.

I understand Hilaire that you are Irish and if Clause 28 affected you then presumably you are from Northern Ireland (unless of course you have moved). Even today NI is (by an large) a pretty homophobic place. It certainly was in the 1980s. If Clause 28 had not existed the bullying and homophobia of NI (and elsewhere) would still have existed, promoted by religious bigots on both sides. Even today I don't think many would want to walk into a pub on either the Falls or the Shankill and "come out" as gay, wile in rural areas the churches whether RC or presbyterian hardly give a proper lead on tolerance.

No I'm not Irish, I was born in London and went to school in England until the age of 16 at which point I moved to Ireland. So there's no need to patronise me about how much more Homophobic Northern Ireland may (or may not) be.

Clause 28 had absolutely nothing to do with positive discrimination in local government authority employment practices and you know that very well. I'm shocked that you can try to justify the appalling bigotry of the Tory party of the 1980's and I'm saddened that you do not see that Tory politicians who supported the introduction of Clause 28 and opposed its abolition in 2003 are responsible for and complicit in the alienation of a generation of young gay people.

That there are people whose lives were ruined, in many cases permanently, by Clause 28, and that young people took their own lives because of the misery they lived in which might otherwise have been alleviated had Clause 28 never been introduced by the party you now lionise is unforgivable.

I don't agree that you can take any issue from a couple of decades ago and form a view of the person based on that alone.

Oh really? So lets say he were still alive, should I have discounted the horrors committed in Kosovo when forming an opinion of Slobodan Milosevic even though they were the result of his political decisions and actions of a couple of decades ago? Naturally clause 28 is not of the same magnitude but that would hardly be of any comfort to the utterly bereft families of young gay people who could have been saved were it not for the rampant Homophobia of the Tory party.